forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Sarevok Anchev
This is not just from the Baldur's Gate II: Shadows Of Amn game. It's from the novels Baldur's Gate and Baldur's Gate II: Throne Of Bhaal as well. Thank you. DrizztTheSlayer 02:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC) :Well, the games are so much more interesting and have so much more information to recount that here, as with Irenicus, I don't know how to fit in the much fewer canonical details. I suppose someone might get around to adding a little section on that. Ville V. Kokko 19:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC) Another picture? Could someone get here the iconic picture of Sarevok in armour from the first game? I don't do pictures, myself. Ville V. Kokko 20:32, 8 May 2007 (UTC) :Done. --Ebakunin 04:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Great job Great work on this article! It has grown quite comprehensive and is well-sourced. It's ideal really. Fw190a8 08:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC) :Except that it lacks all the specifically canonical information. Oh well. Ville V. Kokko 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC) :(Otherwise, yes, I was kind of thinking the same thing myself. Even if I do say so myself.) Ville V. Kokko 09:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC) :: lol! Zerak talk 20:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC) :::Well, I'm a perfectionist. :-P Ville V. Kokko 06:49, 16 May 2007 (UTC) ::::That's very welcome :) As already said above, great job mate. Zerak talk 06:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Images Does anyone mind if I switch the two pictures around (as the armored Sarevok is able to fill up the 250px of the char.box)? Also I think people tend to associate the armored picture with Sarevok more, so it'd be a bit more appropriate to use in the template. As said before it's more "iconic". Johnnyriot999 23:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC) :I don't know. The other is certainly more of a portrait, and if it were outside the box, I'm not sure where it would go on the page and how ti would be titled. I'm not sure what you mean about the size, either, but it doesn't seem like something that matters as far as I'm concerned. I don't care much, but I vote half-heartedly against the change. Ville V. Kokko 07:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC) ::I made the changes so you can see what I mean about the size, there are no more white borders on the left and right of the char. box image now. Seeing as how you're the real go-to guy on the BG stuff, it's totally cool if you revert it, I just wanted to show you what I had in mind. Johnnyriot999 08:11, 17 July 2007 (UTC) :::Come to think of it, I probably would have put it more like that in the first place if I had started the article. I won't touch it unless I feel I have a better idea. Ville V. Kokko 08:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC) Early life section Regarding this edit and subsequently this revert, I am confused. The revert's summary is "That's obvious, but it doesn't help the timeline. This was pre- Time of Troubles." but I don't really understand what is obvious. It seems like the original edit swapped one distinct piece of information for another totally different one, and the revert undid this. Why wouldn't both pieces of information be relevant here? Fw190a8 20:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC) :It seemed to me the change I undid was supposed to be an explanation for the pointed-out puzzling detail it was put there to replace. That, it wasn't. (It was also what was obvious; I meant that that detail was obvious to the editor who had written the earlier version, it wasn't a missing piece of information that led to it being written something was unclear.) Even if it bears saying, it probably shouldn't be at just that point. But I also didn't think it necessarily needs to be explained separately - mostly I think the same purpose is already served by linking to Bhaalspawn right at the start of the article. Ville V. Kokko 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)